Ladies, Gentlemen, really please let's not get personal or abusive, it is not helpful and distracts from your otherwise important and valid contributions. Meanwhile here's some additional food for thought.

Interesting how readily people rush to accept, as irrefutable fact, the views offered by Dienekes that R U106 is 'Germanic' drawn from his observations that:

“The existence of R-U106 as a major lineage within the Germanic group is self-evident, as Germanic populations have a higher frequency against all their neighbors (Romance, Irish, Slavs, Finns). Indeed, highest frequencies are attained in the Germanic countries, followed by countries where Germanic speakers are known to have settled in large numbers but to have ultimately been absorbed or fled (such as Ireland, north Italy, and the lands of the Austro-Hungarian empire). South Italy, the Balkans, and West Asia are areas of the world where no Germanic settlement of any importance is attested, and correspondingly R-U106 shrinks to near-zero.”

Such an interpretation when applied to R1a1a poses some interesting considerations

In Europe, reportedly the R1a1a sub-clade, is found at highest levels among peoples of Eastern European descent (Sorbs, Poles, Russians and Ukrainians; 50 to 65%). In the Baltic countries R1a frequencies decrease from Lithuania (45%) to Estonia (around 30%).Levels in Hungarians have been noted between 20 and 60%. Now there is also noted among peoples of Scandinavian descent a fairly significant amount of R1a1a, in Norway and Iceland we are informed between 20 to 30%

So if we apply Dienekes thinking we can create the following 'fact'

“The existence of R1a1a as a major lineage within the Eastern European group is self-evident, as Sorb, Polish, Russian and Ukranian populations have a higher frequency against all their neighbors . Indeed, highest frequencies are attained in the East European countries...

now comes the contentious, thought provoking element:….followed by countries where Slavonic speakers are known to have settled in large numbers but to have ultimately been absorbed or fled....

Given that R1a1 has such a significant presence among Scandinavian countries, if we apply the Dienekes model then we should continue our statement by claiming such migration/colonization by Slavic R1a1a peoples took place in countries

….such as Norway, Iceland Sweden Denmark

Now the advocates of the orthodoxy, that R U106 is 'Germanic', and that its presence in Britain, and by default Ireland,is explained by 'Dark Age' invasion of Angles. Frisians etc (who we are asked to accept explains the over 20% frequency of R U106) are required to apply a similar thinking to the presence of R1a1a in said Scandinavian countries.

By such 'reasoning' the frequency of that Haplogroup in Norway for example is due to later Slavonic expansion into Scandinavia, oh but wait a moment, is there any recorded history of a Slavic invasion, of what must have been a considerable magnitude, to displace initial populations and establish such a significant presence of R1a1a?

Admittedly this is an exercise in reductio ad absurdum however it's fun to highlight the shortcomings of an unquestioning belief in the infallibility of those considered as 'expert'.

Now it may well be that my knowledge of Scandinavian history is superficial and that there was indeed, during the so-called Dark Ages, a massive influx of R1a1a into Scandinavian countries. I genuinely welcome helpful sources that document such an event, although one last thought is causing some curiosity, if such a colonization took place and upon such a scale as to establish such a large frequency, then why are the good people of Norway not speaking a Slavonic language,as opposed to a Northern Germanic variety? After all the R U106 orthodoxy would have us believe that Germanic settlers to Britain arrived in such numbers and imposed their language sufficiently, as to create English.

Before reaching for your quills in response, such musings are of course addressed by the generally held view, that the original expansion of R1a occurred during the westward migrations of the Corded Ware Culture around 3200 to 1800 BCE, many regard that as constituting the first wave of R1a into Europe, one that seemingly accounts for the presence of the Haplogroup in Scandinavia.

All sounds very plausible of course, but hang on a moment, is this suggesting that the current frequency of the Haplogroup in say Norway is attributed to that early migration and not due to later expansions of Slavic peoples? If the latter then we would need to see indications, such as place-name, Slavic language and recorded history, if not we are required to accept that the Haplogroup migrated and became established there at some early time.

Which returns us inevitably to the central point of this thread, in that if it's likely that R1a1a is derived from some ancient migration and settlement, why is it not possible that R U106 in Britain or Ireland may owe its origins to a similarly archaic time?

What makes you assume that I or anyone else replying to you here has even read Dienekes on the subject of U106, let alone been guided by his views? I certainly hadn't.

As for R1a1a - my views on that can be read in my text. Its distribution is far wider than that of U106. The two are not parallel cases. R1a1a correlates with a very wide range of IE languages within several language families. U106 does not.

If anyone ever thought that R1a1a in Scandinavia was entirely due to Slavic incomers, or that Slavs conquered India and Iran, then the new SNPs that we have now within R1a1a should disabuse their minds of such silly ideas, which are not supported by linguistics or archaeology and certainly do not qualify as any kind of orthodoxy. [Added] Then again people with such silly ideas can't have been paying any attention to the evidence in the first place, so there is no guarantee that they will pay any attention to yet more evidence.

Such an interpretation when applied to R1a1a poses some interesting considerations

In Europe, reportedly the R1a1a sub-clade, is found at highest levels among peoples of Eastern European descent (Sorbs, Poles, Russians and Ukrainians; 50 to 65%). In the Baltic countries R1a frequencies decrease from Lithuania (45%) to Estonia (around 30%).Levels in Hungarians have been noted between 20 and 60%. Now there is also noted among peoples of Scandinavian descent a fairly significant amount of R1a1a, in Norway and Iceland we are informed between 20 to 30%

So if we apply Dienekes thinking we can create the following 'fact'

“The existence of R1a1a as a major lineage within the Eastern European group is self-evident, as Sorb, Polish, Russian and Ukranian populations have a higher frequency against all their neighbors . Indeed, highest frequencies are attained in the East European countries.... . .

Utter drivel.

No one here has even attempted to apply "such an interpretation" to R1a1a.

The facts for U106 and R1a1a are not the same, and no one here is attempting to say the same sorts of things about R1a1a that have been said about U106.

Besides, this thread, begun by you, has to do with U106, not R1a1a.

So, please, provide some evidence for your position on the actual topic of this thread and quit trying to mask your complete inability to do so with this kind of transparent silliness.

Would be more enlightening if responses actually addressed in detail , rather than hurling insults, I respect and value the views offered here by fellow contributors but there's no need for such hostile and abusive tones. So if anyone has a thoughtful, mature or intelligent response, critique of my last post I am happy to read such, but would again ask that people behave with courtesy.

As we have mentioned previously, there is no 'evidence' one way or another, only varying or conflicting probabilities, including the scenario that as part of an admixture R U106 may have traveled across Western Europe to Britain and Ireland prior to the later Germanic expansions. Moreover, I have not asserted that anyone here 'applied' what was clearly a speculative example and analogy which I offered, that was an entirely reasonable parallel, in that it asks a number of interesting salient questions, most importantly if R1a could reach Scandinavia during some very early migration to establish itself, resulting in over 20% frequency, then would R U106 not have been able to similarly migrate westwards, to say Britain, at an ancient time?

Now on the subject of 'evidence', it is a self-serving ploy to demand such, in the knowledge that in truth none actually exists, instead we are restricted to assertions theories, hypotheses and observations. These may all have varying degrees of persuasiveness of likely hood, yet cannot of themselves be considered as definitive or conclusive evidence. It is therefore somewhat disingenuous to request me to furnish anything, apart from an alternative scenario or speculation. Until as yet unforeseen methodology or technical advances make for reliable testing of ancient Y DNA, none of us are able to empirically determine which theories, hypotheses or observations are conclusively true. So it is, that on this subject, we are indeed contained within an arena of opinion, that is not a philosophical claim, nor concealment, but a bald fact, in that context you have every right to express your view , as I do to offer a different consideration. Clearly we are not going to reach agreement, that being so, perhaps we should gently retire to enable other voices to contribute.

It is not prevarication nor obfuscation, the reality is just that, you have a view on this and I am simply offering a different perspective, there's no need for the threat of censorship, just because I refuse to accept as 'evidence' what are in fact assumptions and assertions. In terms of providing 'proof' the burden actually rests with yourself as it was you who first opposed the speculation that wondered if R U106 may have entered Ireland at some early stage as part of an admixture.

I had explained that ' Burden of Proof' is a fallacy, in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side, your insistence for me to present 'evidence' (when none can be offered, as you know) is a version of such fallacious posturing where the lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B.

This is also termed 'Appeal to Ignorance'. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

Such argument is of course entirely unhelpful, but the fact you have felt the need to use such fallacy reveals the truth of what we are discussing here, in that we have an absence of hard evidence, instead being in possession of opinion, no matter how informed or not.

Throughout our exchanges I have sought to maintain a positive and balanced tone, it is very disappointing that the responses to what are valid considerations and genuine questions are being treated with such barely veiled hostility. It's a real shame that otherwise intelligent and helpful contributions are debased in such a fashion, for my part I truly respect those who hold a different opinion on this subject and trust that fellow visitors and contributors to this important and excellent forum extend an equal respect to others, no matter the divergence of views.

Meanwhile it would be more helpful to address the actual topic, rather than chasing red herrings down a road marked 'personal'

Actually more like game set & highly selective misinterpretation and out of context quotation, throughout my posts I have made clear that there is no 'evidence', in the sense understood and determined by scientific assessment for either position on this subject. That is a balanced perspective, in that the door is left open to consider a range of possibilities, be they R U106 having arrived with Cambro-Norman, Elizabethan and Cromwellian plantations OR that equally the Haplogroup as part of an admixture may well have entered during an earlier migration, hence my analogy and questions relating to R1a in Scandinavia. Any careful reading of my contributions here can note that my comments have obviously been placed in a speculative framework, it is not I who trumpets as fact an assertion, that in truth. as you rightly suggest. is based not upon evidence, but assertion and considered opinion.

You are arguing that one is like the other, therefore, since we cannot conclude that R1a in Europe is mostly Slavic and its presence the result of the movements of Slavic peoples, we cannot conclude that U106 is mostly Germanic and its presence the result of the movements of Germanic peoples.

But that is a bad argument, because the two are not alike.

And you are attempting to obfuscate. You started this thread, ostensibly about the possibility that there were early movements of U106 that have since been overlain by later movements of U106 during the historical period.

It is not unreasonable or a logical fallacy to ask you to provide some real reasons - some evidence - for your side of things. That you have completely and utterly failed to do. You don't even try, as a matter of fact, which only convinces me that what you proposed in your original post is just wishful thinking on your part and a notion entirely bereft of any support whatsoever.

When you propose an idea, the burden is on you to provide some support for it.

Since this is dragging on ad nauseam without any resolution in sight, I am locking this thread down.